- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:12:48 -0500
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>I have been reviewing M&S to see which parts of it are: >- not currently in any of our new specs >- have not been decided to be dropped > >These sections appear to be candidates for inclusion in the new top-level >document, fulfilling its dustbin role. > >The main content is to do with vocabulary, particularly: >- containers >- reification >- rdf:value > >I understand that we are maintaining M&S containers but without formal >semantic support and hence somewhere we need informal but normative I do not understand what that is supposed to mean, and would strongly suggest that we do not make any informal text normative. If we wish to make some aspect of containers normative, then lets put that aspect into the model theory, which is the normative account of RDF meaning. The reason there is no formal semantic support for the M&S text on containers is because that text is simply incoherent: the intent that it expresses *cannot* be rendered in RDF, for essentially logical reasons. Rdf:Bags *cannot possibly* be bags. It seems to me to be a serious error to put into the spec as a normative passage something that is provably impossible given the rest of the spec. >text >corresponding to para 90. >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#90 OK, provided it is careful to not support, and preferably to explicitly repudiate, the content of paragraphs 93/94, which are in direct contradiction to paragraph 92. >I understand that we are maintaining reification but clarifying it as >supporting the provenance use case (and hence 'stating' rather than >'statement'). As such text corresponding to M&S section 4 is needed - (all >subject to complete rewrite). >http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#higherorder Please take care to not use the term 'higher-order' in the context, which was a disastrous misuse of terminology in M&S. > >I do not understand what we are doing with rdf:value, but there is a lot of >legacy which is based on stuff written in M&S and we should, IMO, carry some >of that text forward even if we deprecate it. >e.g. show some of the use cases. > > >While this stuff might belong in the schema specification, the current >schema draft appears to want to be very conservative and not suggest >semantics that are not in the model theory. Which is entirely appropriate, seems to me, in fact the only rational choice. I do not mean to suggest that the MT should rule the WG, but that if the MT as it stands does not reflect the intent of the WG , then it - the MT - should be brought in line with that intent. BUt there is no point in even having a precise semantics if the spec itself ignores that precision in its normative prose. Under these circumstances I would suggest simply abandoning the model theory altogether and reverting to the use of informal prose descriptions of meaning. >e.g. >http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_containervocab >http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_value > >Assuming that we do want to carry such intent from M&S forward, and that the >new document is the right home for that intent, I do not think that any part of the final spec should express as normative any aspect of RDF meaning which is not reflected in the model theory. To do so makes the model theory worthless. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2002 11:12:51 UTC